Talk:Lifan Yuan

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Move per requst. It appears that variations of Lifan Yuan are the common title used in English language sources over the current.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Court of Colonial Affairs → Lifan Yuan — - Court of Colonial Affairs is not an accurate translation. Lifan Yuan has become the more common name in English soucres. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently Court of Colonial Affairs was moved to Court of Frontier Affairs. I also agree that Court of Colonial Affairs is not an accurate translation, and personally prefer choosing pinyin Lifan Yuan as this article's title. But I cannot find any page of Court of Frontier Affairs at Google Book Search or Google Scholar, and can find many pages of Court of Colonial Affairs there. Therefore I reverted that moving. Further discussion on the naming issue is welcome. --Pengyanan (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit "Court of Frontier Affairs" is a translation from French wiki. As you said, "Court of Colonial Affairs" is totally inaccurate. Google book offers several translations for it, as Office of Barbarian Control(Sino-Russian Relations: A Short History By R. K. I. Quested, P46), Office of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs(Traditional government in imperial China: a critical analysis By Mu Qian, Mu Ch'ien, George Oakley Totten, P135), Board for the Administration of Outlying Regions(Political frontiers, ethnic boundaries, and human geographies in Chinese history By Nicola Di Cosmo, Don J. Wyatt, P367), Office for Relations with Principalities(Imperial China 900-1800 By Frederick W. Mote, P868), Court of Territorial Affairs(Opium and the limits of empire: drug prohibition in the Chinese interior ... By David Anthony Bello, P65), etc. Because of its diversity, I propose to use the pinyin name - Lifan Yuan in presenting some scholarly translations beside. .--LaGrandefr (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of the article should be the most commonly used English version. The original Chinese and other common English versions should be mentioned (with citations) in the article.  Pengyanan appears to understand this policy already. Bertport (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. According to Naming conventions and Naming conventions (use English), article titile should be the most common English name. Court of Colonial Affairs seems to be the most common translation in Google Book Search or Google Scholar. However, the pinyin Lifan Yuan seems to be more and more often used in English sources. In Google Scholar, there are 74 pages of Lifan Yuan and 79 pages of Court of Colonial Affairs (Lifan Yuan is 94% of Court of Colonial Affairs). But after 1990, there are 61 pages of Lifan Yuan and 53 pages of Court of Colonial Affairs (Lifan Yuan is 115% of Court of Colonial Affairs); after 2000, 47 pages of Lifan Yuan and 36 pages of Court of Colonial Affairs (Lifan Yuan is 131% of Court of Colonial Affairs). Therefore I think that Lifan Yuan is a more proper title for this article. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Lifan Yuan is not an English name at all.  Therefore, it is not the most common English name.  Nearly all the results returned by Google Scholar for "lifan yuan" also use an English name.  What is more, "most common" does not mean "most commonly used by scholars".  A simple Google search (not a Google Scholar search) shows that common usage in English favors "Court of Colonial Affairs" overwhelmingly.    Bertport (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Using English name does not mean that the name should be originally an English word. It means the name is "most commonly used in the English-language references" (see Naming conventions (use English)). For example, Kuomintang is clearly not originally an English word, but it is the most common name in English references. So we don't use Chinese Nationalist Party as the article's title. And Yuan is also commonly adopted in English sources to refer to Chinese government organizations such as Legislative Yuan, Executive Yuan, and Judicial Yuan. The English names used for "Lifan Yuan" in Google Scholar are diverse. The clear trend is that Lifan Yuan has become the most common name used by English academics. Wikipedia should give the academic references more weight than the general Google search. Google search is helpful, but not decisive (see Search engine test). Please note that even Encyclopædia Britannica also adopts the name Lifan Yuan. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Academics who are experts in the relevant field are given more weight in deciding what is correct in the contents of an article, but the title of the article (and it's the title we are discussing here) gets the most common usage, not the most correct usage or even the most common academic usage. Kuomintang is not only common in academic journals, it is also the common usage in newspapers and in books written for the general public.  Tai chi chuan is not of English origin (for that matter, most English words have some origin from another language) but it has effectively entered the English language in common usage, and has an entry in most good English dictionaries. Bertport (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move. Is Court of Colonial Affairs really the more common usage in general Google search? No. Although there seem to be as many as 176,000 English pages for "Court of Colonial Affairs", the actual number is much less. If we go to the last page of this search result, the number dramatically decreases to just 107 English pages. In comparison, there are 1,530 English pages for "lifan yuan", and the actual number is 233 pages. Therefore, even by general Google search, Lifan Yuan is still more commonly used. By Bing search, there are 270 English pages for “Court of Colonial Affairs”, and the actual number is 91; while there are 270 English pages for "Lifan Yuan", and the actual number is 95. We still cannot say that Court of Colonial Affairs is more commonly used. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the actual number of Google results for "Court of Colonial Affairs" is the large number (191,000, or 207,000 - it seems to keep finding more as you keep using the search). At the bottom of the last page it explains that it is only displaying a smaller number, but it gives you the option to display the omitted results too.  Don't be misled by that number at the top of the last page on searches with large numbers of results.  As for Bing, it's obviously not ready for prime time.  Casually eyeball the first page of its results for "lifan yuan" and you can see it returned several pages that do not have "lifan yuan" in them at all. Bertport (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The so-called "large number" in Google search is highly problematic. Yes, Google search gives the option to "repeat the search with the omitted results included." But when I choose that option, the final result is still ONLY 176 pages. Let's try the Yahoo! Search. There are 692 English pages for "Lifan Yuan", and the actual number is 247; while there are 695 English pages for "Court of Colonial Affairs", and the actual number is 293. Considering both Bing search and Yahoo! Search can only get hundreds of pages for Court of Colonial Affairs, I believe that Google search's "large number" is caused by certain technical problem. PS, although "Lifan Yuan" may not appear in some results on the first page of Bing search, if you click those links, you can find all of them have Lifan Yuan. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, those large numbers from Google are real. If you choose to include the omitted results and then advance page by page (not skipping to the end) you will see the results are actually returned, and the number of returned results does not shrink.  As for Bing, it is not finding much of what's out there.  That is obvious, because Google is finding so much more.  There is good reason that Google, not Bing, is the customary tool at Wikipedia for establishing common usage for this policy.  Incidentally, the Amazon search (which is also sometimes used to establish common usage) for "lifan yuan" returns two books, and the Amazon search for "court of colonial affairs" returns thirty-eight books - further evidence that "court of colonial affairs" is more common usage. Bertport (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I followed your guidance and advanced page by page (not skipping to the end), and the final page is still the 18th page with only 180 results (although on the 17th page there are still 176,000 results). Have you really tried to advanced page by page?? As for the Amazon.com search, your result is WRONG. Actually there are 29 books with "Lifan Yuan", 38 books with "Lifanyuan", and 58 books with "li fan yuan"! Have you really searched "lifan yuan" in Amazon.com? Or do you think that no one else will go to verify your claim? Please don't mislead other ones. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy there, Pengyanan. I got the number 2 by following the Amazon link from your Bing page.  (Now it gives 3 - someone has added a keyword to another book since this morning.)  Just now, I went back to see what caused the confusion.  You are right, Amazon has 29 books with "lifan yuan".  The Amazon search linked by the Bing page was for keywords, which is more restricted. Bertport (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so now we cannot say that Court of Colonial Affairs is the more common usage than Lifan Yuan (Lifanyuan/Li fan yuan) in Amazon.com search. --Pengyanan (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, I think you may be right that we should disregard the "191,000 results" or "207,000 results" type numbers coming initially from Google. That leaves us with various searches showing approximate parity between "Court of Colonial Affairs" and "lifan yuan" in terms of usage.  I still support keeping "Court of Colonial Affairs" because it is the most common English term. Bertport (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we disregard the large numbers coming initially from Google, then we cannot find any evidence to prove that Court of Colonial Affairs is the most common English term. I have pointed out that Lifan Yuan is a legitimate title under Naming conventions (use English), and it has become the more common usage, and even Encyclopædia Britannica also adopts this name. I think that the only logical conclusion we can reach is to move Court of Colonial Affairs to Lifan Yuan. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lifan Yuan is not an English name at all. Therefore, it is not the most common English name. Bertport (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I already put it, "using English name does not mean that the name should be originally an English word. It means the name is "most commonly used in the English-language references" (see Naming conventions (use English))". I don't want to repeat myself. But it seems that you did not read others' comments carefully. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to each think the other is paying insufficient attention to our points. If "lifan yuan" were used commonly enough to say that it had entered into the English language, and it were much more commonly used than the current title, you would have a case for moving the article.  As it is, the Google search results are almost identical between the two, if we accept your technique of going to the last page and seeing how many were actually displayed.  This varies somewhat with each attempt, but just now I did that and got 279 for lifan yuan, 273 for CoCA.  On Amazon, searching books (not keyword search), I got 29 for lifan yuan, 38 for CoCA - significantly more for CoCA.  On Google Books (not Google Scholar, which is not representative of common usage), I got 299 lifan yuan, 379 CoCA.  CoCA is more commonly used; it is already the title of the article; and it is English. Bertport (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, as I already indicated, we should 1) consider Lifan Yuan's different varieties (including Lifanyuan and Li fan yuan), and 2) consider the usage in different periods and find the trend. I have pointed it out to you that in Amazon.com, there are "29 books with "Lifan Yuan", 38 books with "Lifanyuan", and 58 books with "li fan yuan"". There are ONLY 38 for CoCA in Amazon.com. Which one is "significantly more"?? By general Google search, there are 733 English pages for "Lifan Yuan", 623 for "Lifanyuan", 186 for "li fan yuan", and ONLY 185 for "CoCA". Which one is "significantly more"??  OK, the Google search results may not be very accurate and reliable. Let's try the Google Book Search you bring, there are 378 books for "CoCA", 297 for "Lifan Yuan", 256 for "Lifanyuan", and 653 for "li fan yuan"! Which one is "significantly more"?? Let's continue to compare the usage in different periods. In the total number, "Lifan Yuan" (not including Lifanyuan and Li fan yuan) is 79% of "CoCA" (297/378). But before 1990, there are 117 books for "Lifan Yuan" and 196 for CoCA (Lifan Yuan is 60% of CoCA); between 1990 to 2000, 82 for "Lifan Yuan" and 92 for CoCA (Lifan Yuan is 89% of CoCA) ; after 2000, 91 for "Lifan Yuan" and 89 for CoCA (Lifan Yuan is 102% of CoCA). Don't forget that the varieties Lifanyuan and Li fan yuan are even not included in the period-by-period comparison. Again, the Google Book Search also indicates the clear trend that has been indicated by Google Scholar (again, I have pointed it out already): Lifan Yuan (Lifanyuan/Li fan yuan) has become the more common usage. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. We might as well search for Office of Barbarian Control, Office of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, Board for the Administration of Outlying Regions, Office for Relations with Principalities, and Court of Territorial Affairs as "related versions" of Court of Colonial Affairs. Bertport (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to search for those terms. I must say that each term you mentioned above is more accurate and more proper than Court of Colonial Affairs. They are not "related versions" of Court of Colonial Affairs. They are totally different from CoCA and are much better. --Pengyanan (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Related versions" is an invalid concept in picking a title for an article. "Li fan yuan" is not the same title as "Lifan yuan".  "Court of Colonial Affairs" is the most commonly used English name. Bertport (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is YOU that use the concept of "related versions". Lifanyuan and Li fan yuan are NOT the so-called "related versions" of Lifan Yuan. They are just other varieties of spelling. Thanks for your understanding. --Pengyanan (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Same thing. "Varieties of spelling" is an invalid concept in picking a title for an article.  "Li fan yuan" is not the same title as "Lifan yuan".  "Court of Colonial Affairs" is the most commonly used English name. Bertport (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. "Varieties of spelling" is a VALID concept in picking a title for an article.  "Li fan yuan" IS the same title as "Lifan yuan".  "Court of Colonial Affairs" is NOT the most commonly used English name. --Pengyanan (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move: I think with all arguments above, people have no reason to keep the inaccurate, purposive, shoddy title "Court of Colonial Affairs". Bertport is simply a Tibetan propagandist so I don't expect he would change his twisted mind one day.--LaGrandefr (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Lifanyuan (or some version thereof) per most common name. However: technically, those search results for Lifanyuan should be restricted to English language sources, which I think was not done when searching on google books. Yaan (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. The English-only results of Google Book Search are: 214 books for "Lifanyuan", 240 books for "Lifan Yuan", 657 books for "Li fan yuan", and 379 books for "Court of Colonial Affairs". Lifan Yuan (Lifanyuan/Li fan yuan) is still more commonly used. --Pengyanan (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * New information: [www.britannica.com] adopts the title "Lifan Yuan".--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks. But this is not new. I have already pointed out this information twice. --Pengyanan (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What's going on? Shall we wait 3000 years for a correct title? What does "Backlog" mean?--LaGrandefr (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that the bureaucracy of English Wikipedia works in this way, I have no choice but to correct the wrong title in my way.--LaGrandefr (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be patient, and DON'T rename a page by cut and paste. See Help:Moving a page. Thank you! --Pengyanan (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was